My take--not that anyone gives a damn: The senate will vote it down on a party line vote--it will go to conference committee which will come up with some bullshit and kick the can down to the white house--GOK what Obama will do--given his lack of sleep probably go on TV further anesthetizing the american public--The jug eared douchernozzle will have to make a decision--voting present is not an option.

The Tea Party folks asking to amend the constitution is no more radical than Charlie Brown requesting a signed contract from Lucy stating she will not, finally, pull the football away at the last second.

History is clear that "cuts" happen in out years and somehow never materialize.

Why? These same people refusing to raise the debt limit did it with no fuss at all seven times in the last decade. I guess it wasn't a big deal all those times because they were the ones tripling the national debt and not some socialist Kenyan Muslim marxist maoist etc etc. Republican debt is just somehow more valid than Democratic debt.

US debt rating will continue to be base on our ability to pay, not our current unwillingness to pay which is being clouded by political smoke and mirrors. Once this political madness passes the US will pay its debts plus any accrued interest. If you are a bond investor you have to go with the US economy over say Greece.

Because that was their opinion and policy and in order to support something else, they had to COMPROMISE.

"These same people refusing to raise the debt limit did it with no fuss at all seven times in the last decade. I guess it wasn't a big deal all those times because they were the ones tripling the national debt and not some socialist Kenyan Muslim marxist maoist etc etc. Republican debt is just somehow more valid than Democratic debt."

You say all of these things as if they are BAD. Are they BAD, Jim? ARE they?

Maybe some people can LEARN and some people can't? Maybe the economic melt-down was a wake-up call? Is that impossible in your world? Or does an opinion or action one day require slavish adherence to that opinion forever more?

"Again: hypocrites."

For having a bad idea and going along with unwise policies and then... deciding to do something else?

Really?

Honestly?

Lord above knows that the answer to MY financial difficulties is not only to borrow more money but to spend more money. After all, I spent irresponsibly in the past and I wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would I.

Why? These same people refusing to raise the debt limit did it with no fuss at all seven times in the last decade. I guess it wasn't a big deal all those times because they were the ones tripling the national debt and not some socialist Kenyan Muslim marxist maoist etc etc. Republican debt is just somehow more valid than Democratic debt.

and lets not forget this quote from Senator Obama in 2007:"America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

Five South Carolina Republicans voted "No." That includes my Representative Joe "You Lied" Wilson, and my new Rep. after reapportionment, Tim Scott. I think this reflects their view of the value of Federal funding, since Obama would not send these guys a dime to save them from Eternal Damnation.

South Carolina lead the 1860-61 movement to secede from the Union. That turned out well for the state.

One data point, but it is illustrative. Here in the Kansas-3 congressional district -- suburban KC and surrounding rural areas -- we were represented between 1999 and 2011 by a supposed 'blue dog' Democrat who in recent years refused to listen to his constituents about cutting expenses and voting against Obama-care.

With a couple of exceptions his electoral victories were well into double figures. This year he stepped aside in favor of ... his wife.

Our new Republican member is a hard-core expense-cutter and balanced budget guy. In 2010 he won the district by over 20%.

The Tea Party types think they have a mandate, because they do -- in this case a 40-point swing in a district reliably Democrat for a dozen years.

These same people refusing to raise the debt limit did it with no fuss at all seven times in the last decade.

@ Jim

Actually....no.

The Tea Party Freshmen are the ones holding the line against debt ceiling raises. The were not there before and the REASON that they ARE there is that they have a MANDATE from their constituents to hold the line.

"These same people refusing to raise the debt limit did it with no fuss at all seven times in the last decade"

Well, that's not true. You miss the point of the Tea Party. They were elected to do things differently than the "no fuss" debt raisers, and they are trying to find a way to do that successfully. Refusing to raise the debt limit at this time was not the right way to proceed, but the issue of out of control spending is not going away,

Things are changing. This round of disputes won't solve much, but we simply can not continue the way we have been doing it in the past.

The bond market has already decided what will happen in August... not much. US treasury bond holders expect to be paid with accrued interest once the smoke clears. The rest is just political science, like global warming.

"The bond market has already decided what will happen in August... not much. US treasury bond holders expect to be paid with accrued interest once the smoke clears. The rest is just political science, like global warming."

Don't count on it if this thing goes too far past August 2nd.

Wall Street (and the global economy) doesn't believe that the US govenrment would actually do something so insane. They think a compromise is going to happen. Eh,who knows? Maybe they will get it together in time.

Let's be honest. The rating agencies and Wall Street will barely register any relief from debt ceiling increase. They won't relax until the long term imbalance and overspending is fixed. Dems and Obama and veteran Repubs are in denial but someone must pay the piper soon.

What are we defending dipshit? We're pointing out a group of maniacs are on the verge of bringing the U.S. into default over raising the debt ceiling by giving us a list of demands.

-----

Beautiful inversion of reality here.

What they're trying to prevent is the insolvency of the existing entitlement programs and prevent a default. That is what their "demands" are for. Democrats are left with unicorn farts and the power of positive thinking.

We're pointing out a group of maniacs are on the verge of bringing the U.S. into default over raising the debt ceiling by giving us a list of demands.

There is no danger of bring the US into default (aka not paying the interest on its bonds or basic entitlement obligations like SS and Medicare)....

If the Democrats would agree to quit spending.

In your personal life, when you have bills to pay and not enough money coming in, you have to make choices.

Borrow more money that you can't pay back already? No

Let your mortgage and car loans go into default and lose your house and car. NO.

Prioritize your SPENDING and cut back on those things that you can like hamburger instead of steak. Staying home instead of the vacation to Bocca. Wear last years clothing instead of an annual shopping spree at Nordstrom...>YES!!!

As much fun as it may be for some to lambast the barbarians at the gate Repubs, let's review a little recent history on the Fed Gov's budget. We in the DC area track like the Fed budget like hawks, since DC is a company town, and that Fed money is our lifeblood.

The Fed gov experienced a brief shutdown in April of this year because there was not a continuing resolution to fund it. This would not have happened had there been a complete budget passed for the Oct 2010 - Sept 2011 fiscal year.

Notice that date -- Oct 2010. So a budget should have been in place BEFORE the Tea Partiers were even elected!

The Democrats could have passed a budget for fiscal 2010-2011 while they controlled both chambers and the executive. But they didn't.

For fiscal 2011-2012, which we are in now, there's still no budget. Obama's budget was rejected by both Dems and Repubs in both chambers, and another budget has not been voted on.

The Dems want to keep their fingerprints off the budget for one simple reason: we're out of money, and the necessary cuts are going to hurt like hell. It's especially going to hit their constituencies, and they want no part in crafting their own electoral demise.

"There is no danger of bring the US into default (aka not paying the interest on its bonds or basic entitlement obligations like SS and Medicare)...."

yes. Default on the interest is less a danger then the government contracts. The USA is the biggest single purchaser of goods and services in the world. In term of the money people, failing to pay for these obligations is going to, as the kids say, freak their sh*t out.

After the next round of S.S. checks going out things will get very very interesting.

The Dems want to keep their fingerprints off the budget for one simple reason: we're out of money, and the necessary cuts are going to hurt like hell. It's especially going to hit their constituencies, and they want no part in crafting their own electoral demise.

---------

Pretty much. The whole reason for the Democratic party's existence is patronage - paying off their constituents with government dollars for votes.

Well there's an inevitable crunch coming and less dollars = less votes. They're trying to find a way to finnese this shit because they've seen what's happening in Europe when leftist fantasy crashes into budget reality, social European parties are forced to alienate their own constituents in order to prevent default.

The bond market believes this is a six to nine month snafu... nothing more. The ten year US treasury fell in price this week due to increased demand. Bond holders are concerned that their euro investments may not be sound.

Why is it that the Tea Party which loves our constitution is so eager to change it?

Because the method of change that they propose is CONSTITUTIONAL.

Amending the Constitution through the proper and appropriate methods instead of by fiat and behind closed doors, by politicians who think they are above the rules and have deemed themselves to be our betters.

We had the war against drugs, the war against poverty, the fight against illiteracy...I officially dub this latest, the very nadir of political thought in this age or any other, the liberal WAR AGAINST MATH.

Leftists can defeat conservatives at the ballot box, but they can't defeat math. But by golly, they're gonna try!

One day, we'll learn that the corpse of a 400-pound mama's boy had to be crained out of his taxpayer funded mancave in his mama's basement.

I know you'll run and hide like you usually do when asked a tough question, but would you care to make this interesting? If you work, [which is questionable], you'll have a W-2 statement from last year's earnings. We compare yours and mine, and we can talk about that here. Deal?

If Obama doesn't want to do this again next year he should have come to an agreement with Congress and told Democrats it was the best they'd get and that he'd sign it and the Senate ought to pass it. Over and done with before election season.

That's what he wants, right?

As it is, the plan passed by Congress passed by no more than a hair. What this means is that Boehner got as far away from the demands of the Tea Party sorts as he was able to get without going over the line entirely. He needs something that will pass. He found the limit that he could go toward what Democrats want and still get it to pass.

That's all he can do.

Obama can whine all he wants and Reid can posture, but unless they're prepared to pull a plan out of their asses that will get the votes, they've got nothing at all.

All the energy in WA DC is going toward no compromise. I think both sides want to make it go smash -- just to see what happens.

In terms of the practical downside of compromise? Members of both parties are afraid of loosing elections - either through a primary or in the general.

It's all about gaining personal power and political games.

No, I don't think the Democrats want to see it go smash. I just think they don't know how to use the tools at their disposal. Often it seems they don't know how to even pick them up. There is, however, an element of fascination on their part with the TPers.

Nor do I think both sides are afraid of *losing* the elections. I don't think the TPers are.

So, someone or other as I was clicking around made the claim that what the Democrats want is the Dem plan that they can blame on Republicans.

I was trying to figure out what the downside for Democrats to going with the plan the Republicans would like to have and being able to blame it firmly on the Republicans would be. What is the downside to the Democrats if they did that?

They get a debt ceiling raise in exchange for what would amount to symbolic government shrinkage. And if it causes any discomfort they can blame Republicans.

Down side?

But if what they really want (other than Obama not wanting to deal with this next year) is to be able to blame Republicans for their OWN plan... then that is different. Obama hasn't given us his plan and neither have Democratic lawmakers, so what the Dem plan is is a mystery. If the Republicans pass what amounts to the Dem plan, who's to know if later the Democrats claim it was all the Republicans fault?

Or is that too convoluted?

If they know it will all be bad, no matter what, it might make sense to want to symbolically attach the Republicans to a "bi-partisan" plan so that they can force Republicans to take "credit" or at least keep Republicans from using the bad economy during the campaign season.

But if it will all be bad anyway, isn't it even easier to do that if they conspicuously let the Republicans get their way and position themselves to heroically take the high ground by *letting* them?

Just a gut feeling, but I feel sure that Obama invoking 14th amendment to usurp Congressional budgetary authority would push lots of otherwise reasonable people into support for impeachment. It be a sure sign of too much executive power.

How this little smoach ended up a leader of the rep party instead of hanging out on someone's concrete patio slab fronting the Gulf of Mexico, drink in one hand and cigarette (boo) in the other, talking about going fishing tomorrow is beyond me.

"I was trying to figure out what the downside for Democrats to going with the plan the Republicans would like to have and being able to blame it firmly on the Republicans would be. What is the downside to the Democrats if they did that?"

The downside for D's is that they could loose an election if they cut medicare, ect.

And they don't have enought to sell it to their supporters at home.

And Obama & allied dems are worried that an austerity program will hurt the economy which will hurt his election chances [for example: what happened to England after they passed their austerity program.] Worried about growth slowing due to austerity.

Really, the Ds aren't voting for the same reason as the Rs. can't sell it at home.

Why not just raise the debt ceiling no strings attached? Or get rid of it altogether. Right now, if the debt ceiling isn't raised, the POTUS can pick and choose what to spend money on. This can't be right.

And Obama & allied dems are worried that an austerity program will hurt the economy So raising tax rates like they want to won't hurt the economy? And how many billion will actually be cut before the election? Considering everything else he's done, Obama either doesn't care about the economy or knows nothing of economics.

garage, I don't have a W-2, but I can tell you that my pension from where I used to work was $7,320. I had no Federal tax taken out and had $130 taken out by Wisconsin. Eventually, on all my various investments, I paid $303 in Federal taxes.